DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-6, 8- 9, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22, 24-25, and 30 are amended. Claims 31-34 are newly added. Claims 2, 10, 18, and 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, new prior art Kim et al. (US 2024/0348534), hereinafter Kim was discovered after a search on the newly added claims and claim limitations. Kim teaches: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths: “The SMF may also include MP PDU Session applicability or preference information in the URSP. For example, the Route selection components comprising the Route Selection Descriptor of the URSP may include “information about whether the UE, when creating a PDU Session for the application/traffic it is matching (i.e., matching the Traffic Descriptor of the URSP), may create it in the form of an MP PDU Session or whether it is preferred to create it in the form of an MP PDU Session” (Kim ¶ 0485), the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path: “FIG. 8a illustrates a first example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8b illustrates a second example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8c illustrates a third example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths” (Kim ¶ 0261).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12, 16-17, 20-25, 28, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2021/163665), hereinafter Wang in further view of Pan (US 11,259,350), and Kim et al. (US 2024/0348534), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches: A remote wireless communication device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories: “the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of non-transitory computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs). A processor in association with software may be used to implement a radio frequency transceiver for use in a WTRU 102, UE, terminal, base station, RNC, or any host computer” (Wang ¶ 0139) and configured to: receive an indication to support multiple paths for a protocol data unit (PDU) session: “URSP rules may be configured (e.g., preconfigured) for the WTRU 102 and may include an indication for establishing a MA-PDU session 220” (Wang ¶ 0083); establish a multi-access PDU (MA-PDU) session with a network entity over a direct path: “the WTRU 102 may access the 5GC 115 using a 3GPP access network (e.g., using a second radio technology) via a RAN 113 (or a RAN 104)” (Wang ¶ 0076); and communicate via the MA-PDU session: “The UPF 184 may communicate these flows to the DN 185, such as over an N6 interface. For example, the MA-PDU session 220 may have a non-3GPP access 230 (e.g. via the N3IWF 210) and a 3GPP access 240 (e.g., via the RAN 113. The WTRU 102 may send one or more flows (e.g., flows 222 and 224) via a 3GPP access leg of the MA-PDU session 220 to the RAN 113 using a first radio access technology (e.g., 5G NR). The WTRU 102 may send one or more flows (e.g., flow 226) via a non-3GPP access leg of the MA-PDU session 220 to the N3IWF 210 using a second radio access technology (e.g., IEEE 802.11)” (Wang ¶ 0076).
Wang does not teach: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths, the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path; and configure the MA-PDU session, in accordance with a sidelink policy indicating a relay wireless communication device with non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) support, to include an indirect path via the relay wireless communication device.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 1, Pan teaches: configure the MA-PDU session, in accordance with a sidelink policy indicating a relay wireless communication device with non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) support: “The N3IWF provides NAS connectivity to the 5GC and end-to-end security for Remote UEs (see FIG. 6.23.1-1) via UE-to-NW Relay Access. The N3IWF treats the Remote UE as any N3GPP UE, i.e. there is no impact on N3IWF.” (Pan Col 29 Lines 44-47), to include an indirect path via the relay wireless communication device: “UE-to-Network Relay communication is studied for UE to access network via indirect network communication. Basically, Rel-16 5G architectural design (e.g. flow-based QoS communication over PC5/Uu interface) could be taken into consideration. In the scenario of UE-to-Network relay communication, a remote UE would access the network (e.g. 5GC) via a relay UE where the remote UE would be in out-of-coverage while the relay UE would be in-coverage. The remote UE would communicate with the relay UE via PC5 interface (or called sidelink interface) for accessing the network, while the relay UE would communicate with a base station (e.g. gNB) via Uu interface for forwarding traffic between the remote UE and the network” (Pan Col 37 Lines 36-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang with Pan for the purpose of allowing for the use of E-UTRAN systems and evolved 5G. According to Pan: “The E-UTRAN system can provide high data throughput in order to realize the above-noted voice over IP and multimedia services. A new radio technology for the next generation (e.g., 5G) is currently being discussed by the 3GPP standards organization. Accordingly, changes to the current body of 3GPP standard are currently being submitted and considered to evolve and finalize the 3GPP standard” (Pan Col 1 Lines 33-41).
Pan does not teach: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths, the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths: “The SMF may also include MP PDU Session applicability or preference information in the URSP. For example, the Route selection components comprising the Route Selection Descriptor of the URSP may include “information about whether the UE, when creating a PDU Session for the application/traffic it is matching (i.e., matching the Traffic Descriptor of the URSP), may create it in the form of an MP PDU Session or whether it is preferred to create it in the form of an MP PDU Session” (Kim ¶ 0485), the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path: “FIG. 8a illustrates a first example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8b illustrates a second example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8c illustrates a third example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths” (Kim ¶ 0261 and Fig. 8a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
435
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim Fig. 8a
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang and Pan with Kim for the purpose of solving a problem where multiple paths between UE and network cannot be determined. According to Kim: “there is a problem that multiple paths between the UE and the network cannot be distinguished, because conventionally only one path is used for a single PDU session, either a path that does not go through UE-to-Network Relay or a path that goes through UE-to-Network Relay. For example, conventional Access and Mobility Function (AMF), Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN), Session Management Function (SMF), User Plane Function (UPF), etc. can distinguish between different UEs, but cannot distinguish between multiple paths for a single PDU session. Therefore, there are problems that AMF, NG-RAN, SMF, UPF, etc. cannot distinguish which paths information for a PDU session, N2 Session Management (SM) information, information for Quality of Service (QoS) flow, etc. is for” (Kim ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang teaches: The remote wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the direct path is via a 3GPP access network: “the WTRU 102 may access the 5GC 115 using a 3GPP access network (e.g., using a second radio technology) via a RAN 113 (or a RAN 104)” (Wang ¶ 0076).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches: The remote wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) information associated with the MA-PDU session: “During a traffic steering or switching process (e.g., when ATSSS rule evaluation results point to or indicate 3GPP access), a WTRU 102 may send data over an associated PDN connection 304 in the EPC 306.” (Wang ¶ 0098).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches: A remote wireless communication device, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory: “the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of non-transitory computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs). A processor in association with software may be used to implement a radio frequency transceiver for use in a WTRU 102, UE, terminal, base station, RNC, or any host computer” (Wang ¶ 0139) and configured to: receive an indication to support multiple paths for a protocol data unit (PDU) session: “URSP rules may be configured (e.g., preconfigured) for the WTRU 102 and may include an indication for establishing a MA-PDU session 220” (Wang ¶ 0083); establish a multi-access PDU (MA-PDU) session with a network entity over a direct path: “the WTRU 102 may access the 5GC 115 using a 3GPP access network (e.g., using a second radio technology) via a RAN 113 (or a RAN 104)” (Wang ¶ 0076).
Wang does not teach: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths, the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path; and configuring the MA-PDU session to include an indirect path via a relay wireless communication device and associated with a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF).
Regarding Claim 9, Pan teaches: configuring the MA-PDU session, in accordance with a sidelink policy indicating a relay wireless communication device with non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) support and “The N3IWF provides NAS connectivity to the 5GC and end-to-end security for Remote UEs (see FIG. 6.23.1-1) via UE-to-NW Relay Access. The N3IWF treats the Remote UE as any N3GPP UE, i.e. there is no impact on N3IWF.” (Pan Col 29 Lines 44-47), to include an indirect path via the relay wireless communication device: “UE-to-Network Relay communication is studied for UE to access network via indirect network communication. Basically, Rel-16 5G architectural design (e.g. flow-based QoS communication over PC5/Uu interface) could be taken into consideration. In the scenario of UE-to-Network relay communication, a remote UE would access the network (e.g. 5GC) via a relay UE where the remote UE would be in out-of-coverage while the relay UE would be in-coverage. The remote UE would communicate with the relay UE via PC5 interface (or called sidelink interface) for accessing the network, while the relay UE would communicate with a base station (e.g. gNB) via Uu interface for forwarding traffic between the remote UE and the network” (Pan Col 37 Lines 36-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang with Pan for the purpose of allowing for the use of E-UTRAN systems and evolved 5G. According to Pan: “The E-UTRAN system can provide high data throughput in order to realize the above-noted voice over IP and multimedia services. A new radio technology for the next generation (e.g., 5G) is currently being discussed by the 3GPP standards organization. Accordingly, changes to the current body of 3GPP standard are currently being submitted and considered to evolve and finalize the 3GPP standard” (Pan Col 1 Lines 33-41).
Pan does not teach: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths, the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths: “The SMF may also include MP PDU Session applicability or preference information in the URSP. For example, the Route selection components comprising the Route Selection Descriptor of the URSP may include “information about whether the UE, when creating a PDU Session for the application/traffic it is matching (i.e., matching the Traffic Descriptor of the URSP), may create it in the form of an MP PDU Session or whether it is preferred to create it in the form of an MP PDU Session” (Kim ¶ 0485), the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path: “FIG. 8a illustrates a first example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8b illustrates a second example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8c illustrates a third example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths” (Kim ¶ 0261 and Fig. 8a above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang and Pan with Kim for the purpose of solving a problem where multiple paths between UE and network cannot be determined. According to Kim: “there is a problem that multiple paths between the UE and the network cannot be distinguished, because conventionally only one path is used for a single PDU session, either a path that does not go through UE-to-Network Relay or a path that goes through UE-to-Network Relay. For example, conventional Access and Mobility Function (AMF), Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN), Session Management Function (SMF), User Plane Function (UPF), etc. can distinguish between different UEs, but cannot distinguish between multiple paths for a single PDU session. Therefore, there are problems that AMF, NG-RAN, SMF, UPF, etc. cannot distinguish which paths information for a PDU session, N2 Session Management (SM) information, information for Quality of Service (QoS) flow, etc. is for” (Kim ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang teaches: The method of claim 9, wherein the direct path is via a 3GPP access network: “the WTRU 102 may access the 5GC 115 using a 3GPP access network (e.g., using a second radio technology) via a RAN 113 (or a RAN 104)” (Wang ¶ 0076).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang teaches: The method of claim 14, wherein the route selection descriptor does not indicate to offload communication outside of a PDU session: Wang never mentions nor suggests that during route selection the communication would ever be offloaded outside of a PDU session, therefore the route selection descriptor within Wang does not indicate to offload communication outside of a PDU session.
Regarding Claim 16, Wang teaches: The method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) information associated with the MA-PDU session: “During a traffic steering or switching process (e.g., when ATSSS rule evaluation results point to or indicate 3GPP access), a WTRU 102 may send data over an associated PDN connection 304 in the EPC 306.” (Wang ¶ 0098).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication: “the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of non-transitory computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs). A processor in association with software may be used to implement a radio frequency transceiver for use in a WTRU 102, UE, terminal, base station, RNC, or any host computer” (Wang ¶ 0139), the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a remote wireless communication device, cause the remote wireless communication device to: receive an indication to support multiple paths for a protocol data unit (PDU) session: “URSP rules may be configured (e.g., preconfigured) for the WTRU 102 and may include an indication for establishing a MA-PDU session 220” (Wang ¶ 0083); establish a multi-access PDU (MA-PDU) session with a network entity over a direct path: “the WTRU 102 may access the 5GC 115 using a 3GPP access network (e.g., using a second radio technology) via a RAN 113 (or a RAN 104)” (Wang ¶ 0076).
Wang does not teach: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths, the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path; and configure the MA-PDU session to include an indirect path via a relay wireless communication device and associated with a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF).
Regarding Claim 17, Pan teaches: configure the MA-PDU session, in accordance with a sidelink policy indicating a relay wireless communication device with non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) support and “The N3IWF provides NAS connectivity to the 5GC and end-to-end security for Remote UEs (see FIG. 6.23.1-1) via UE-to-NW Relay Access. The N3IWF treats the Remote UE as any N3GPP UE, i.e. there is no impact on N3IWF.” (Pan Col 29 Lines 44-47), to include an indirect path via the relay wireless communication device: “UE-to-Network Relay communication is studied for UE to access network via indirect network communication. Basically, Rel-16 5G architectural design (e.g. flow-based QoS communication over PC5/Uu interface) could be taken into consideration. In the scenario of UE-to-Network relay communication, a remote UE would access the network (e.g. 5GC) via a relay UE where the remote UE would be in out-of-coverage while the relay UE would be in-coverage. The remote UE would communicate with the relay UE via PC5 interface (or called sidelink interface) for accessing the network, while the relay UE would communicate with a base station (e.g. gNB) via Uu interface for forwarding traffic between the remote UE and the network” (Pan Col 37 Lines 36-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang with Pan for the purpose of allowing for the use of E-UTRAN systems and evolved 5G. According to Pan: “The E-UTRAN system can provide high data throughput in order to realize the above-noted voice over IP and multimedia services. A new radio technology for the next generation (e.g., 5G) is currently being discussed by the 3GPP standards organization. Accordingly, changes to the current body of 3GPP standard are currently being submitted and considered to evolve and finalize the 3GPP standard” (Pan Col 1 Lines 33-41).
Pan does not teach: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths, the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths: “The SMF may also include MP PDU Session applicability or preference information in the URSP. For example, the Route selection components comprising the Route Selection Descriptor of the URSP may include “information about whether the UE, when creating a PDU Session for the application/traffic it is matching (i.e., matching the Traffic Descriptor of the URSP), may create it in the form of an MP PDU Session or whether it is preferred to create it in the form of an MP PDU Session” (Kim ¶ 0485), the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path: “FIG. 8a illustrates a first example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8b illustrates a second example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8c illustrates a third example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths” (Kim ¶ 0261 and Fig. 8a above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang and Pan with Kim for the purpose of solving a problem where multiple paths between UE and network cannot be determined. According to Kim: “there is a problem that multiple paths between the UE and the network cannot be distinguished, because conventionally only one path is used for a single PDU session, either a path that does not go through UE-to-Network Relay or a path that goes through UE-to-Network Relay. For example, conventional Access and Mobility Function (AMF), Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN), Session Management Function (SMF), User Plane Function (UPF), etc. can distinguish between different UEs, but cannot distinguish between multiple paths for a single PDU session. Therefore, there are problems that AMF, NG-RAN, SMF, UPF, etc. cannot distinguish which paths information for a PDU session, N2 Session Management (SM) information, information for Quality of Service (QoS) flow, etc. is for” (Kim ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the direct path is via a 3GPP access network: “the WTRU 102 may access the 5GC 115 using a 3GPP access network (e.g., using a second radio technology) via a RAN 113 (or a RAN 104)” (Wang ¶ 0076).
Regarding Claim 23, Wang teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the route selection descriptor does not indicate to offload communication outside of a PDU session: Wang never mentions nor suggests that during route selection the communication would ever be offloaded outside of a PDU session, therefore the route selection descriptor within Wang does not indicate to offload communication outside of a PDU session.
Regarding Claim 24, Wang teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the remote wireless communication device to: receive access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) information associated with the MA-PDU session: “During a traffic steering or switching process (e.g., when ATSSS rule evaluation results point to or indicate 3GPP access), a WTRU 102 may send data over an associated PDN connection 304 in the EPC 306.” (Wang ¶ 0098), wherein communicating via the MA-PDU session further comprises communicating in accordance with the ATSSS information: “the WTRU 102 may receive a PDU session establishment accept message. The message may confirm that the MA-PDU session 220 has been successfully set up. The WTRU 102 may receive ATSSS rules and/or QoS rules in the message” (Wang ¶ 0105).
Regarding Claim 25, Wang teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: means for receiving an indication to support multiple paths for a protocol data unit (PDU) session; means for establishing: “the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of non-transitory computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs). A processor in association with software may be used to implement a radio frequency transceiver for use in a WTRU 102, UE, terminal, base station, RNC, or any host computer” (Wang ¶ 0139) a multi-access PDU (MA-PDU) session with a network entity over a direct path: “the WTRU 102 may access the 5GC 115 using a 3GPP access network (e.g., using a second radio technology) via a RAN 113 (or a RAN 104)” (Wang ¶ 0076).
Wang does not teach: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths, the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path; and configure the MA-PDU session to include an indirect path via a relay wireless communication device and associated with a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF).
Regarding Claim 25, Pan teaches: configure the MA-PDU session, in accordance with a sidelink policy indicating a relay wireless communication device with non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) support and “The N3IWF provides NAS connectivity to the 5GC and end-to-end security for Remote UEs (see FIG. 6.23.1-1) via UE-to-NW Relay Access. The N3IWF treats the Remote UE as any N3GPP UE, i.e. there is no impact on N3IWF.” (Pan Col 29 Lines 44-47), to include an indirect path via the relay wireless communication device: “UE-to-Network Relay communication is studied for UE to access network via indirect network communication. Basically, Rel-16 5G architectural design (e.g. flow-based QoS communication over PC5/Uu interface) could be taken into consideration. In the scenario of UE-to-Network relay communication, a remote UE would access the network (e.g. 5GC) via a relay UE where the remote UE would be in out-of-coverage while the relay UE would be in-coverage. The remote UE would communicate with the relay UE via PC5 interface (or called sidelink interface) for accessing the network, while the relay UE would communicate with a base station (e.g. gNB) via Uu interface for forwarding traffic between the remote UE and the network” (Pan Col 37 Lines 36-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang with Pan for the purpose of allowing for the use of E-UTRAN systems and evolved 5G. According to Pan: “The E-UTRAN system can provide high data throughput in order to realize the above-noted voice over IP and multimedia services. A new radio technology for the next generation (e.g., 5G) is currently being discussed by the 3GPP standards organization. Accordingly, changes to the current body of 3GPP standard are currently being submitted and considered to evolve and finalize the 3GPP standard” (Pan Col 1 Lines 33-41).
Pan does not teach: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths, the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path.
Regarding Claim 25, Kim teaches: the indication comprising user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) information including an access type preference field set to a value associated with multiple paths: “The SMF may also include MP PDU Session applicability or preference information in the URSP. For example, the Route selection components comprising the Route Selection Descriptor of the URSP may include “information about whether the UE, when creating a PDU Session for the application/traffic it is matching (i.e., matching the Traffic Descriptor of the URSP), may create it in the form of an MP PDU Session or whether it is preferred to create it in the form of an MP PDU Session” (Kim ¶ 0485), the value associated with the multiple paths indicating that the PDU session is to include a direct path and an indirect path: “FIG. 8a illustrates a first example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8b illustrates a second example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8c illustrates a third example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths” (Kim ¶ 0261 and Fig. 8a above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang and Pan with Kim for the purpose of solving a problem where multiple paths between UE and network cannot be determined. According to Kim: “there is a problem that multiple paths between the UE and the network cannot be distinguished, because conventionally only one path is used for a single PDU session, either a path that does not go through UE-to-Network Relay or a path that goes through UE-to-Network Relay. For example, conventional Access and Mobility Function (AMF), Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN), Session Management Function (SMF), User Plane Function (UPF), etc. can distinguish between different UEs, but cannot distinguish between multiple paths for a single PDU session. Therefore, there are problems that AMF, NG-RAN, SMF, UPF, etc. cannot distinguish which paths information for a PDU session, N2 Session Management (SM) information, information for Quality of Service (QoS) flow, etc. is for” (Kim ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 28, Wang teaches: The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the direct path is via a 3GPP access network: “the WTRU 102 may access the 5GC 115 using a 3GPP access network (e.g., using a second radio technology) via a RAN 113 (or a RAN 104)” (Wang ¶ 0076).
Regarding Claim 31, Wang and Pan teach: The remote wireless communication device of claim 1.
Wang and Pan do not teach: the URSP information includes at least one URSP rule comprising a route selection descriptor having the access type preference field set to the value associated with the multiple paths.
Regarding Claim 31, Kim teaches: the URSP information includes at least one URSP rule comprising a route selection descriptor having the access type preference field set to the value associated with the multiple paths: “If URSP is used, for the example Route Selection Descriptor in Table 3 below based on Table 6.6.2.1-3 of TS 23.503, multi-path related information (e.g. Multi-path preference, Multi-path indication, etc.) may be added as part of the Route selection components information. This would eventually indicate that multi-path may be used for applications, traffic, etc. that are matched/mapped to the Traffic descriptor in Table 6.6.2.1-2: UE Route Selection Policy Rule in TS 23.503 V16.9.0, as well as indicating that multi-access may be used by setting the conventional Access Type preference to Multi-Access” (Kim ¶ 0529).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang and Pan with Kim for the purpose of solving a problem where multiple paths between UE and network cannot be determined. According to Kim: “there is a problem that multiple paths between the UE and the network cannot be distinguished, because conventionally only one path is used for a single PDU session, either a path that does not go through UE-to-Network Relay or a path that goes through UE-to-Network Relay. For example, conventional Access and Mobility Function (AMF), Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN), Session Management Function (SMF), User Plane Function (UPF), etc. can distinguish between different UEs, but cannot distinguish between multiple paths for a single PDU session. Therefore, there are problems that AMF, NG-RAN, SMF, UPF, etc. cannot distinguish which paths information for a PDU session, N2 Session Management (SM) information, information for Quality of Service (QoS) flow, etc. is for” (Kim ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 32, Wang and Pan teach: The remote wireless communication device of claim 1.
Wang and Pan do not teach: the MA-PDU session is configured to facilitate communication via both the direct path and the indirect path simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 32, Kim teaches: the MA-PDU session is configured to facilitate communication via both the direct path and the indirect path simultaneously: “FIG. 8a illustrates a first example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8b illustrates a second example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths. FIG. 8c illustrates a third example where services related to a PDU session are provided over two paths” (Kim ¶ 0261 and Fig. 8a above) and “A PDU session may be associated either (a) with a single access type at a given time, i.e., either 3GPP access or non-3GPP access, or (b) simultaneously with multiple access types, i.e., one 3GPP access and one non-3GPP access” (Kim ¶ 0185).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang and Pan with Kim for the purpose of solving a problem where multiple paths between UE and network cannot be determined. According to Kim: “there is a problem that multiple paths between the UE and the network cannot be distinguished, because conventionally only one path is used for a single PDU session, either a path that does not go through UE-to-Network Relay or a path that goes through UE-to-Network Relay. For example, conventional Access and Mobility Function (AMF), Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN), Session Management Function (SMF), User Plane Function (UPF), etc. can distinguish between different UEs, but cannot distinguish between multiple paths for a single PDU session. Therefore, there are problems that AMF, NG-RAN, SMF, UPF, etc. cannot distinguish which paths information for a PDU session, N2 Session Management (SM) information, information for Quality of Service (QoS) flow, etc. is for” (Kim ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 33, Wang and Pan teach: The method of claim 9.
Wang and Pan do not teach: the URSP information includes at least one URSP rule comprising a route selection descriptor having the access type preference field set to the value associated with the multiple paths.
Regarding Claim 33, Kim teaches: the URSP information includes at least one URSP rule comprising a route selection descriptor having the access type preference field set to the value associated with the multiple paths: “If URSP is used, for the example Route Selection Descriptor in Table 3 below based on Table 6.6.2.1-3 of TS 23.503, multi-path related information (e.g. Multi-path preference, Multi-path indication, etc.) may be added as part of the Route selection components information. This would eventually indicate that multi-path may be used for applications, traffic, etc. that are matched/mapped to the Traffic descriptor in Table 6.6.2.1-2: UE Route Selection Policy Rule in TS 23.503 V16.9.0, as well as indicating that multi-access may be used by setting the conventional Access Type preference to Multi-Access” (Kim ¶ 0529).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang and Pan with Kim for the purpose of solving a problem where multiple paths between UE and network cannot be determined. According to Kim: “there is a problem that multiple paths between the UE and the network cannot be distinguished, because conventionally only one path is used for a single PDU session, either a path that does not go through UE-to-Network Relay or a path that goes through UE-to-Network Relay. For example, conventional Access and Mobility Function (AMF), Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN), Session Management Function (SMF), User Plane Function (UPF), etc. can distinguish between different UEs, but cannot distinguish between multiple paths for a single PDU session. Therefore, there are problems that AMF, NG-RAN, SMF, UPF, etc. cannot distinguish which paths information for a PDU session, N2 Session Management (SM) information, information for Quality of Service (QoS) flow, etc. is for” (Kim ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 34, Wang and Pan teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17.
Wang and Pan do not teach: the URSP information includes at least one URSP rule comprising a route selection descriptor having the access type preference field set to the value associated with the multiple paths.
Regarding Claim 34, Kim teaches: the URSP information includes at least one URSP rule comprising a route selection descriptor having the access type preference field set to the value associated with the multiple paths: “If URSP is used, for the example Route Selection Descriptor in Table 3 below based on Table 6.6.2.1-3 of TS 23.503, multi-path related information (e.g. Multi-path preference, Multi-path indication, etc.) may be added as part of the Route selection components information. This would eventually indicate that multi-path may be used for applications, traffic, etc. that are matched/mapped to the Traffic descriptor in Table 6.6.2.1-2: UE Route Selection Policy Rule in TS 23.503 V16.9.0, as well as indicating that multi-access may be used by setting the conventional Access Type preference to Multi-Access” (Kim ¶ 0529).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang and Pan with Kim for the purpose of solving a problem where multiple paths between UE and network cannot be determined. According to Kim: “there is a problem that multiple paths between the UE and the network cannot be distinguished, because conventionally only one path is used for a single PDU session, either a path that does not go through UE-to-Network Relay or a path that goes through UE-to-Network Relay. For example, conventional Access and Mobility Function (AMF), Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN), Session Management Function (SMF), User Plane Function (UPF), etc. can distinguish between different UEs, but cannot distinguish between multiple paths for a single PDU session. Therefore, there are problems that AMF, NG-RAN, SMF, UPF, etc. cannot distinguish which paths information for a PDU session, N2 Session Management (SM) information, information for Quality of Service (QoS) flow, etc. is for” (Kim ¶ 0006).
Claims 3, 6-7, 11, 14, 19, 22, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Pan, and Kim as applied to claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 above, and further in view of Nuggehalli et al. (US 2023/0199560), hereinafter Nuggehalli.
Regarding Claim 3, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The remote wireless communication device of claim 1.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: the one or more processors are configured to: communicate via a indirect path using a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relaying.
Regarding Claim 3, Nuggehalli teaches the one or more processors are configured to: communicate via a indirect path using a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relaying: “For example, the user equipment 110 may communicate with the UPF 160 through the non-cellular access 180 and N3IWF 210 via the NWu interface and N3 interface at 233 and 221, respectively. Accordingly, communication between various entities described herein can be implemented using any suitable path through corresponding network connections, nodes, reference points, interfaces, and/or relay” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0046), wherein the N3 interface is known to be the interface which conveys user data from the RAN to the user plane function (UPF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Nuggehalli for the purpose of extending battery life of UE. According to Nuggehalli: “the energy-aware traffic manager enables data traffic management based on aspects of user equipment energy or other local conditions, which may reduce user equipment energy consumption associated with communicating data over one or more different access types and extend battery life of the user equipment” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The remote wireless communication device of claim 1.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: the one or more processors are configured to: communicate via the indirect path based at least in part on a route selection descriptor of a URSP rule that matches one or more of: application traffic, or an application associated with the MA-PDU session.
Regarding Claim 6, Nuggehalli teaches: the one or more processors are configured to: communicate via the indirect path based at least in part on a route selection descriptor of a URSP rule that matches one or more of: application traffic, or an application associated with the MA-PDU session: “The non-cellular access 180 connects to the user equipment 110 and the N3IWF 210, respectively, via a Y1 interface and Y2 interface at 231 and 232. The user equipment 110 connects to the N3IWF 210 and AMF 150 via respective NWu and N1 interfaces at 233 and 234. The N3IWF 210 or a trusted non-3GPP gateway can route or tunnel user-plane traffic of the user equipment 110 to the UPF via the N3 interface at 221, such as in accordance with various aspects of energy-aware traffic management” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Nuggehalli for the purpose of extending battery life of UE. According to Nuggehalli: “the energy-aware traffic manager enables data traffic management based on aspects of user equipment energy or other local conditions, which may reduce user equipment energy consumption associated with communicating data over one or more different access types and extend battery life of the user equipment” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang teaches: The remote wireless communication device of claim 6, wherein the route selection descriptor does not indicate to offload communication outside of a PDU session: Wang never mentions nor suggests that during route selection the communication would ever be offloaded outside of a PDU session, therefore the route selection descriptor within Wang does not indicate to offload communication outside of a PDU session.
Regarding Claim 11, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The method of claim 9.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: communicating via a indirect path using a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relaying.
Regarding Claim 11, Nuggehalli teaches: communicating via a indirect path using a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relaying: “For example, the user equipment 110 may communicate with the UPF 160 through the non-cellular access 180 and N3IWF 210 via the NWu interface and N3 interface at 233 and 221, respectively. Accordingly, communication between various entities described herein can be implemented using any suitable path through corresponding network connections, nodes, reference points, interfaces, and/or relay” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0046), wherein the N3 interface is known to be the interface which conveys user data from the RAN to the user plane function (UPF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Nuggehalli for the purpose of extending battery life of UE. According to Nuggehalli: “the energy-aware traffic manager enables data traffic management based on aspects of user equipment energy or other local conditions, which may reduce user equipment energy consumption associated with communicating data over one or more different access types and extend battery life of the user equipment” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The method of claim 9.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: determining that an application associated with the MA-PDU session matches a URSP rule; and communicating via the MA-PDU session based at least in part on a route selection descriptor of the URSP rule.
Regarding Claim 14, Nuggehalli teaches: determining that an application associated with the MA-PDU session matches a URSP rule; and communicating via the MA-PDU session based at least in part on a route selection descriptor of the URSP rule: “The non-cellular access 180 connects to the user equipment 110 and the N3IWF 210, respectively, via a Y1 interface and Y2 interface at 231 and 232. The user equipment 110 connects to the N3IWF 210 and AMF 150 via respective NWu and N1 interfaces at 233 and 234. The N3IWF 210 or a trusted non-3GPP gateway can route or tunnel user-plane traffic of the user equipment 110 to the UPF via the N3 interface at 221, such as in accordance with various aspects of energy-aware traffic management” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Nuggehalli for the purpose of extending battery life of UE. According to Nuggehalli: “the energy-aware traffic manager enables data traffic management based on aspects of user equipment energy or other local conditions, which may reduce user equipment energy consumption associated with communicating data over one or more different access types and extend battery life of the user equipment” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: the one or more instructions cause the remote wireless communication device to: communicate via the indirect path using a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relaying.
Regarding Claim 19, Nuggehalli teaches: the one or more instructions cause the remote wireless communication device to: communicate via the indirect path using a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relaying: “For example, the user equipment 110 may communicate with the UPF 160 through the non-cellular access 180 and N3IWF 210 via the NWu interface and N3 interface at 233 and 221, respectively. Accordingly, communication between various entities described herein can be implemented using any suitable path through corresponding network connections, nodes, reference points, interfaces, and/or relay” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0046), wherein the N3 interface is known to be the interface which conveys user data from the RAN to the user plane function (UPF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Nuggehalli for the purpose of extending battery life of UE. According to Nuggehalli: “the energy-aware traffic manager enables data traffic management based on aspects of user equipment energy or other local conditions, which may reduce user equipment energy consumption associated with communicating data over one or more different access types and extend battery life of the user equipment” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 22, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: the one or more instructions further cause the remote wireless communication device to: determine that application traffic matches a URSP rule corresponding to URSP information; and communicate via the indirect path based at least in part on a route selection descriptor of the URSP rule.
Regarding Claim 22, Nuggehalli teaches: : the one or more instructions further cause the remote wireless communication device to: determine that application traffic matches a URSP rule corresponding to URSP information; and communicate via the indirect path based at least in part on a route selection descriptor of the URSP rule: “The non-cellular access 180 connects to the user equipment 110 and the N3IWF 210, respectively, via a Y1 interface and Y2 interface at 231 and 232. The user equipment 110 connects to the N3IWF 210 and AMF 150 via respective NWu and N1 interfaces at 233 and 234. The N3IWF 210 or a trusted non-3GPP gateway can route or tunnel user-plane traffic of the user equipment 110 to the UPF via the N3 interface at 221, such as in accordance with various aspects of energy-aware traffic management” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Nuggehalli for the purpose of extending battery life of UE. According to Nuggehalli: “the energy-aware traffic manager enables data traffic management based on aspects of user equipment energy or other local conditions, which may reduce user equipment energy consumption associated with communicating data over one or more different access types and extend battery life of the user equipment” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 27, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The apparatus of claim 25.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: comprising: means for communicating via the indirect path using a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relaying.
Regarding Claim 27, Nuggehalli teaches: comprising: means for communicating via the indirect path using a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relaying: “For example, the user equipment 110 may communicate with the UPF 160 through the non-cellular access 180 and N3IWF 210 via the NWu interface and N3 interface at 233 and 221, respectively. Accordingly, communication between various entities described herein can be implemented using any suitable path through corresponding network connections, nodes, reference points, interfaces, and/or relay” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0046), wherein the N3 interface is known to be the interface which conveys user data from the RAN to the user plane function (UPF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Nuggehalli for the purpose of extending battery life of UE. According to Nuggehalli: “the energy-aware traffic manager enables data traffic management based on aspects of user equipment energy or other local conditions, which may reduce user equipment energy consumption associated with communicating data over one or more different access types and extend battery life of the user equipment” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 30, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The apparatus of claim 25.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: means for determining that an application associated with the MA-PDU session matches a URSP rule; and means for communicating via the MA-PDU session based at least in part on a route selection descriptor of the user equipment route selection policy rule.
Regarding Claim 30, Nuggehalli teaches: means for determining that an application associated with the MA-PDU session matches a URSP; and means for communicating via the MA-PDU session based at least in part on a route selection descriptor of the URSP: “The non-cellular access 180 connects to the user equipment 110 and the N3IWF 210, respectively, via a Y1 interface and Y2 interface at 231 and 232. The user equipment 110 connects to the N3IWF 210 and AMF 150 via respective NWu and N1 interfaces at 233 and 234. The N3IWF 210 or a trusted non-3GPP gateway can route or tunnel user-plane traffic of the user equipment 110 to the UPF via the N3 interface at 221, such as in accordance with various aspects of energy-aware traffic management” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Nuggehalli for the purpose of extending battery life of UE. According to Nuggehalli: “the energy-aware traffic manager enables data traffic management based on aspects of user equipment energy or other local conditions, which may reduce user equipment energy consumption associated with communicating data over one or more different access types and extend battery life of the user equipment” (Nuggehalli ¶ 0005).
Claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Pan, and Kim as applied to claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 above, and further in view of Youn et al. (US 2022/0417825), hereinafter Youn.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The remote wireless communication device of claim 1.
Wang and Pan do not teach: the one or more processors are configured to: discover the relay wireless communication based at least in part on the relay wireless communication device being associated with a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relay protocol with N3IWF support.
Regarding Claim 5, Youn teaches: the one or more processors are configured to: discover the relay wireless communication device based at least in part on the relay wireless communication device being associated with a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relay protocol with N3IWF support: “If the first UE receives permission to use the PC5 unicast link from the network while performing communication through the Uu link, the first UE may have performed a proximity request in order to be notified when the peer second UE communicating through the Uu link comes within a specific range (i.e., within a distance range where communication via the PC5 link is possible)” (Youn ¶ 0271) and “In the above-described step 3, in case the Request type indicates an “existing PDU session”, the SMF determines that the corresponding request is caused by a handover between the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access. The SMF may identify the existing PDU session based on the PDU session ID” (Youn ¶ 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Youn for the purpose of providing rules for performing a PDU session related procedure. According to Youn: “a disclosure of the present specification may provide a method of performing a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session related procedure. The method may comprise transmitting a PDU session related message including a first indication related to a communication through a PC5 link to a Session Management Function (SMF) device; and receiving a response message from the SMF device. The response message may include: a first Quality of Service (QoS) rule to be used on a Uu link, a second QoS rule to be used on the PC5 link, and a path selection rule for whether data should be transmitted over the Uu link or the PC5 link” (Youn ¶ 0072).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The method of claim 9.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: discovering the relay wireless communication device based at least in part on the relay wireless communication device being associated with a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relay protocol with N3IWF support.
Regarding Claim 13, Youn teaches: discovering the relay wireless communication device based at least in part on the relay wireless communication device being associated with a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relay protocol with N3IWF support: “If the first UE receives permission to use the PC5 unicast link from the network while performing communication through the Uu link, the first UE may have performed a proximity request in order to be notified when the peer second UE communicating through the Uu link comes within a specific range (i.e., within a distance range where communication via the PC5 link is possible)” (Youn ¶ 0271) and “In the above-described step 3, in case the Request type indicates an “existing PDU session”, the SMF determines that the corresponding request is caused by a handover between the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access. The SMF may identify the existing PDU session based on the PDU session ID” (Youn ¶ 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Youn for the purpose of providing rules for performing a PDU session related procedure. According to Youn: “a disclosure of the present specification may provide a method of performing a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session related procedure. The method may comprise transmitting a PDU session related message including a first indication related to a communication through a PC5 link to a Session Management Function (SMF) device; and receiving a response message from the SMF device. The response message may include: a first Quality of Service (QoS) rule to be used on a Uu link, a second QoS rule to be used on the PC5 link, and a path selection rule for whether data should be transmitted over the Uu link or the PC5 link” (Youn ¶ 0072).
Regarding Claim 21, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: discovering the relay wireless communication device based at least in part on the relay wireless communication device being associated with a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relay protocol with N3IWF support.
Regarding Claim 21, Youn teaches: the one or more instructions further cause the remote wireless communication device to: discover the relay wireless communication device based at least in part on the relay wireless communication device being associated with a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relay protocol with N3IWF support: “If the first UE receives permission to use the PC5 unicast link from the network while performing communication through the Uu link, the first UE may have performed a proximity request in order to be notified when the peer second UE communicating through the Uu link comes within a specific range (i.e., within a distance range where communication via the PC5 link is possible)” (Youn ¶ 0271) and “In the above-described step 3, in case the Request type indicates an “existing PDU session”, the SMF determines that the corresponding request is caused by a handover between the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access. The SMF may identify the existing PDU session based on the PDU session ID” (Youn ¶ 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Youn for the purpose of providing rules for performing a PDU session related procedure. According to Youn: “a disclosure of the present specification may provide a method of performing a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session related procedure. The method may comprise transmitting a PDU session related message including a first indication related to a communication through a PC5 link to a Session Management Function (SMF) device; and receiving a response message from the SMF device. The response message may include: a first Quality of Service (QoS) rule to be used on a Uu link, a second QoS rule to be used on the PC5 link, and a path selection rule for whether data should be transmitted over the Uu link or the PC5 link” (Youn ¶ 0072).
Regarding Claim 29, Wang, Pan, and Kim teach: The apparatus of claim 25.
Wang, Pan, and Kim do not teach: means for discovering the relay wireless communication device based at least in part on the relay wireless communication device being associated with a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relay protocol with N3IWF support.
Regarding Claim 21, Youn teaches: the one or more instructions further cause the remote wireless communication device to: discover the relay wireless communication device based at least in part on the relay wireless communication device being associated with a Layer 3 user equipment-to-network relay protocol with N3IWF support: “If the first UE receives permission to use the PC5 unicast link from the network while performing communication through the Uu link, the first UE may have performed a proximity request in order to be notified when the peer second UE communicating through the Uu link comes within a specific range (i.e., within a distance range where communication via the PC5 link is possible)” (Youn ¶ 0271) and “In the above-described step 3, in case the Request type indicates an “existing PDU session”, the SMF determines that the corresponding request is caused by a handover between the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access. The SMF may identify the existing PDU session based on the PDU session ID” (Youn ¶ 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Wang, Pan, and Kim with Youn for the purpose of providing rules for performing a PDU session related procedure. According to Youn: “a disclosure of the present specification may provide a method of performing a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session related procedure. The method may comprise transmitting a PDU session related message including a first indication related to a communication through a PC5 link to a Session Management Function (SMF) device; and receiving a response message from the SMF device. The response message may include: a first Quality of Service (QoS) rule to be used on a Uu link, a second QoS rule to be used on the PC5 link, and a path selection rule for whether data should be transmitted over the Uu link or the PC5 link” (Youn ¶ 0072).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights